I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
C series
—
(C/2025/573)
Language of the case: English
Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Hackl, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 6 September 2024 to refuse access to documents in the format requested or in an existing format, as requested by the applicants under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001; (1)
—Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs, pursuant to Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons, in breach of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 296(2) TFEU.
It is argued that the Commission failed to make an express confirmatory decision and therefore has breached its obligation to provide the applicants with sufficient and adequate reasons for its implied decision to refuse access to documents in the format requested or in an existing format.
—
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/573/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—